3 ms·

This screed is disappointing to me. We tell people to go out and do their own research. We tell people to avoid just buying into group think. We want people

by crusso 6y ago

This screed is disappointing to me. We tell people to go out and do their own research. We tell people to avoid just buying into group think. We want people to be informed citizens who do research, share their research with others, and are open to revealed facts vs just buying into the most appealing emotion-laden rhetoric. Some dude does a bunch of research, reasons as carefully as he can about the subject, and openly provides his research and reasoning to others. The very first note in his research is a disclaimer to say that he's a layperson with no medical or scientific credentials. It doesn't appear that he's trying to deceive anyone. Why the piling on? Why the expenditure of so much effort to silence his intellectual inquiry?

ryanwaggoner 6y ago
The disclaimer was added after the fact. I'm not trying to "silence" anyone. The author should be free to write whatever he wants. I just think it's irresponsible and I'd like to encourage people with any influence or audience to do better. EDIT: lots of criticism of me not mentioning that the author added a disclaimer later. It's a fair criticism, I've updated my article.
- C4stor 6y ago
  But at least it was added. In the meanwhile, your own article doesn't mention this addition in anyway, because I suppose it weakens your narrative ?
- bargl 6y ago
  Edit: Thank you! Everything else below this is now no longer needed. I think your lack of mention of his disclaimer in your article even with the context that it was added after the fact is irresponsible. As I stated here. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23069773 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23069773 Unless I missed it on reading your article you knew about this when you wrote it and didn't mention it even in passing in your article. I only found out by spending 20-30 minutes reading the original and then comments on it. I basically lucked into that information. I don't agree that we should open up right now but your representation of this article lost credibility when I found that one thing. I'd suggest you do as the author did and add your own disclaimer reference.
- crusso 6y ago
  The disclaimer was added after the fact. So you're saying that the guy is open to criticism of his work and correcting it. You say that like it's a bad thing. I don't see how it's irresponsible to work hard at being a more informed citizen and helping to pass that information on to others.
  - btilly 6y ago
    The fact that he changed that without taking into account any of the other flaws in his work suggests that he is not, actually, open to criticism of his work. Here are some examples. He shows charts estimating per age range fatality rates and leaves out the most vulnerable group. He estimates an IFR and thinks that is comparable with a CFR. (They are not.) He is apparently unaware of the fact that IFRs have long been thought to be a bit under 1%. (For example https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/s... in mid-March was the paper that convinced the UK to do a lockdown - it used an estimated IFR of 0.9%.) He does his own IFR calculation for the least vulnerable groups without looking at research showing the full IFR. He complains about hospitals being underloaded while refusing to acknowledge that hospitals would be overloaded without lockdowns. He fails to admit that it is extremely hard to limit transmissions within managed care facilities, and in an environment with lots of COVID-19 around you, personal distancing measures provide very little protection. (In other words we cannot simply "isolate the old people" and expect it to work.) In other words he is ignoring every widely known fact that undermines his position. Which not coincidentally are the facts that lead everyone else to the opposite conclusion from his. Given that he can't fail to have seen many points like these, his leaving them out of his analysis shows dishonesty on his part. And no, he is not attempting to correct this fault.
mistersquid 6y ago
> Why the piling on? Why the expenditure of so much effort to silence his intellectual inquiry? Opposition is not always the same silencing, especially in this case. Strenuously arguing against the rhetorical tactics and intellectual honesty of the presentation of ideas is, in fact, part of the free exchange of ideas.
threatofrain 6y ago
Terrance Tao takes on the same attitude that he won't read your paper.
- threwawasy1228 6y ago
  He is a popular public figure who gets sent crank work claiming to have solved NP=/=P several times a week. His context for saying that is a little different than here where the author is critiquing someone for creating what is essentially a short survey of several papers alongside his commentary. The original author isn't claiming to have proved anything, and even is asking for feedback and public contribution to his survey. It hardly struck me as cranklike. That said, Tao is a good example of why gate-keeping is so dumb. If Tao wrote an article surveying and commentating on the current state of covid-19 epidemiological research as someone with no experience in the field, I'd trust it. I'd actually probably be more likely to trust it than any random credentialed epidemiologist doing the same work.
  - threatofrain 6y ago
    But doesn't the point still stand that the reason why Tao refuses random papers is due to bandwidth/capacity issues? The public faces the same problems, which is why credentials are generally more useful than the lack of it. One of the reasons this is even coming up was due to readers feeling that there was an attempt by the author to obscure over this issue of credibility. And randomly selecting an expert from a field seems a bit off when there are institutions and professionals who have developed _reputation_?
LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
This reminds me a little bit of the discussion about the effectivity of ppe/face masks, in which direction they are effective, and why in some countries. They are effective, if everyone wears them. It just so happened that there were not enough masks available in the countries which had the most heated discussions about this. You got yelled down for saying so. And then, about two months later, when they were available, wearing them was suddenly mandatory. Soothing the masses, so they don't seethe...

by crusso 6y ago

ryanwaggoner 6y ago

The disclaimer was added after the fact. I'm not trying to "silence" anyone. The author should be free to write whatever he wants. I just think it's irresponsible and I'd like to encourage people with any influence or audience to do better. EDIT: lots of criticism of me not mentioning that the author added a disclaimer later. It's a fair criticism, I've updated my article.

C4stor 6y ago
But at least it was added. In the meanwhile, your own article doesn't mention this addition in anyway, because I suppose it weakens your narrative ?
bargl 6y ago
Edit: Thank you! Everything else below this is now no longer needed. I think your lack of mention of his disclaimer in your article even with the context that it was added after the fact is irresponsible. As I stated here. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23069773 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23069773 Unless I missed it on reading your article you knew about this when you wrote it and didn't mention it even in passing in your article. I only found out by spending 20-30 minutes reading the original and then comments on it. I basically lucked into that information. I don't agree that we should open up right now but your representation of this article lost credibility when I found that one thing. I'd suggest you do as the author did and add your own disclaimer reference.
crusso 6y ago
The disclaimer was added after the fact. So you're saying that the guy is open to criticism of his work and correcting it. You say that like it's a bad thing. I don't see how it's irresponsible to work hard at being a more informed citizen and helping to pass that information on to others.
- btilly 6y ago
  The fact that he changed that without taking into account any of the other flaws in his work suggests that he is not, actually, open to criticism of his work. Here are some examples. He shows charts estimating per age range fatality rates and leaves out the most vulnerable group. He estimates an IFR and thinks that is comparable with a CFR. (They are not.) He is apparently unaware of the fact that IFRs have long been thought to be a bit under 1%. (For example https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/s... in mid-March was the paper that convinced the UK to do a lockdown - it used an estimated IFR of 0.9%.) He does his own IFR calculation for the least vulnerable groups without looking at research showing the full IFR. He complains about hospitals being underloaded while refusing to acknowledge that hospitals would be overloaded without lockdowns. He fails to admit that it is extremely hard to limit transmissions within managed care facilities, and in an environment with lots of COVID-19 around you, personal distancing measures provide very little protection. (In other words we cannot simply "isolate the old people" and expect it to work.) In other words he is ignoring every widely known fact that undermines his position. Which not coincidentally are the facts that lead everyone else to the opposite conclusion from his. Given that he can't fail to have seen many points like these, his leaving them out of his analysis shows dishonesty on his part. And no, he is not attempting to correct this fault.

mistersquid 6y ago

> Why the piling on? Why the expenditure of so much effort to silence his intellectual inquiry? Opposition is not always the same silencing, especially in this case. Strenuously arguing against the rhetorical tactics and intellectual honesty of the presentation of ideas is, in fact, part of the free exchange of ideas.

threatofrain 6y ago

Terrance Tao takes on the same attitude that he won't read your paper.

threwawasy1228 6y ago
He is a popular public figure who gets sent crank work claiming to have solved NP=/=P several times a week. His context for saying that is a little different than here where the author is critiquing someone for creating what is essentially a short survey of several papers alongside his commentary. The original author isn't claiming to have proved anything, and even is asking for feedback and public contribution to his survey. It hardly struck me as cranklike. That said, Tao is a good example of why gate-keeping is so dumb. If Tao wrote an article surveying and commentating on the current state of covid-19 epidemiological research as someone with no experience in the field, I'd trust it. I'd actually probably be more likely to trust it than any random credentialed epidemiologist doing the same work.
- threatofrain 6y ago
  But doesn't the point still stand that the reason why Tao refuses random papers is due to bandwidth/capacity issues? The public faces the same problems, which is why credentials are generally more useful than the lack of it. One of the reasons this is even coming up was due to readers feeling that there was an attempt by the author to obscure over this issue of credibility. And randomly selecting an expert from a field seems a bit off when there are institutions and professionals who have developed _reputation_?

LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago

This reminds me a little bit of the discussion about the effectivity of ppe/face masks, in which direction they are effective, and why in some countries. They are effective, if everyone wears them. It just so happened that there were not enough masks available in the countries which had the most heated discussions about this. You got yelled down for saying so. And then, about two months later, when they were available, wearing them was suddenly mandatory. Soothing the masses, so they don't seethe...